Why are engineers way more overpaid than physicists?

The average physicist spends at least 8-10 years in school (undergrad + PhD or in some cases undergrad + Master's PhD), while engineers can get away with only a Bsc. Despite this, the average physicist will only ever cap out somewhere between 40-55K/year, while the average engineer starts off with that and can cap out at double that figure. And when I'm talking about average physicist, I don't mean professor salaries that skew these numbers (professors only make up a very small fraction of physicists), but rather the average physicist tends to be a permanent post-doc or work at national labs.

So, why is this the case? In general, your average engineer couldn't handle simple lagrangians, while the average high energy experimental physicist could not only derive every equation engineers had to struggle through from first principles, but they could also figure out all the design and programs they use on a daily basis. It was high energy experimentalists that figured out how to design a machine to detect the Higgs Boson, which could have important practical implications in the future. In fact, it was physicists that developed every equation and principle engineers use hundreds of years before engineers thought of some way to make it practical. And in many cases, they even develop technology that results from those principles that engineers only later refine and optimize. Classical mechanics resulted in the industrial revolution, electrodynamics resulted in the electronics age we live in today, and quantum mechanics forms the basis of most of our technologies that otherwise would not be possible (LASERS and transistors). If you asked top engineer in the 19th century whether LASERs would ever be possible, he would have told you it's a fantasy.

Engineers are more practical in an every day sense. A lot of them do it for the money as well.

Physicists on the other hand do it most of the time because they love it and don't care for the money. The information a single physicist gathers alone won't really make much of a difference, it's the accumulation of all the data that makes big changes happen.

To be honest though, it mostly depends on the situation they're in. Some engineers make bank, and so do some physicists.

the physics profs at my uni make around 100k. The engineering prof only make around 80-90k, both do research obviously.

Read what I said. Physics profs are not "average physicists". They are the cream of the crop, just like engineers who earn in excess of 200K are the cream of the crop. The exceptions. Most physicists actually work in national laboratories or temporary post-doctoral positions earning 40-55k.

Also, I'd live evidence of physics profs out earning engineering profs. Engineering profs almost always have industrial sponsors that sponsor their research, while only condensed matter experimentalists get any form of industrial sponsors, and even that is often rare.

The average physicist spends at least 8-10 years in school (undergrad + PhD or in some cases undergrad + Master's PhD), while engineers can get away with only a Bsc. Despite this, the average physicist will only ever cap out somewhere between 40-55K/year, while the average engineer starts off with that and can cap out at double that figure. And when I'm talking about average physicist, I don't mean professor salaries that skew these numbers (professors only make up a very small fraction of physicists), but rather the average physicist tends to be a permanent post-doc or work at national labs.

So, why is this the case? In general, your average engineer couldn't handle simple lagrangians, while the average high energy experimental physicist could not only derive every equation engineers had to struggle through from first principles, but they could also figure out all the design and programs they use on a daily basis. It was high energy experimentalists that figured out how to design a machine to detect the Higgs Boson, which could have important practical implications in the future. In fact, it was physicists that developed every equation and principle engineers use hundreds of years before engineers thought of some way to make it practical. And in many cases, they even develop technology that results from those principles that engineers only later refine and optimize. Classical mechanics resulted in the industrial revolution, electrodynamics resulted in the electronics age we live in today, and quantum mechanics forms the basis of most of our technologies that otherwise would not be possible (LASERS and transistors). If you asked top engineer in the 19th century whether LASERs would ever be possible, he would have told you it's a fantasy.

Because that chit doesnt matter in day to day work, you dont need to know that. its not important to the function of an engineer. Do you even understand what engineers do?

Because we don't care how much we get paid. Our quest is to understand the universe, and not a middle class income. Historically, the proverbial physicist has always been a peasant until he made a groundbreaking discovery. Honestly, would still become a physicist and spend 10 years in school after high school even if the pay was 20k. Would probably have to pick up a weekend job on the side or something if that isn't enough to live adequately.

The average physicist spends at least 8-10 years in school (undergrad + PhD or in some cases undergrad + Master's PhD), while engineers can get away with only a Bsc. Despite this, the average physicist will only ever cap out somewhere between 40-55K/year, while the average engineer starts off with that and can cap out at double that figure. And when I'm talking about average physicist, I don't mean professor salaries that skew these numbers (professors only make up a very small fraction of physicists), but rather the average physicist tends to be a permanent post-doc or work at national labs.

So, why is this the case? In general, your average engineer couldn't handle simple lagrangians, while the average high energy experimental physicist could not only derive every equation engineers had to struggle through from first principles, but they could also figure out all the design and programs they use on a daily basis. It was high energy experimentalists that figured out how to design a machine to detect the Higgs Boson, which could have important practical implications in the future. In fact, it was physicists that developed every equation and principle engineers use hundreds of years before engineers thought of some way to make it practical. And in many cases, they even develop technology that results from those principles that engineers only later refine and optimize. Classical mechanics resulted in the industrial revolution, electrodynamics resulted in the electronics age we live in today, and quantum mechanics forms the basis of most of our technologies that otherwise would not be possible (LASERS and transistors). If you asked top engineer in the 19th century whether LASERs would ever be possible, he would have told you it's a fantasy.

I don't know many physicists only making 45k a year. With a PhD a physicist at a lab is making around 100k

a physicist with a PHD will be making bank. they will be scooped up to do research at a university or work in a national lab making 100k+ easily. a physics major who only has a bachelors may make less than an engineer because they don't have the knowledge of a PHD to perform research and have less applied skills to use.

Because physicists don't apply what they learn when they are required to design enormous particle accelerators or massive fusion tokamak reactors, both of which require the best expertise of engineering and physics principles?

Because physicists don't apply what they learn when they are required to design enormous particle accelerators or massive fusion tokamak reactors, both of which require the best expertise of engineering and physics principles?

Because physicists don't apply what they learn when they are required to design enormous particle accelerators or massive fusion tokamak reactors, both of which require the best expertise of engineering and physics principles?

You dumb? Those people are making a **** ton of money. They are engineers as well. There is no real distinction from Engineering / Physicists when you're at that level. For instance, my father was a physics major, he decided to go into engineering, now he designs mass spectrometers...both take a lot of knowledge about physics and the properties of matter

Went to an onsite interview and during lunch I was talking with one of the senior Software Engineers and he said that while they mostly hire CS majors to develop/program they also love hiring graduate and PhD Physics majors. This is because they know they are extremely smart and dedicated, can teach them how to code, and are very cheap to hire compared to someone with a PhD in CS. They basically start them off at the same salary I got offered with a bachelors.

Well, engineers are trained to 'manipulate' physics/chemistry/etc to make a practical product that other people can use to faciliate their lives. While physicists are more towards research for the sake of knowledge (that's why a large number of physicists have no other choice other than academia).

Engineering companies can sell products and make profits, which makes giving engineers a higher salary possible. Physicists rely on research grants, government funding, etc. It's all about business and cash flow, nomsayin?

All salary websites only have the salary of professors, as they deem only professors as the title of "physicist" but forget that the vast majority of physicists who work at national labs. I've worked at a national lab under a number of physicists who have revealed their salaries and the true average salary of the national lab physicist. If you don't believe me, call your local national physics laboratory and inquire about the average salary of the physicist there (they are required to answer as you, the taxpayer, are footing the bill of that laboratory). Most physicists never become professors.

Originally Posted by SaniK

a physicist with a PHD will be making bank. they will be scooped up to do research at a university or work in a national lab making 100k+ easily. a physics major who only has a bachelors may make less than an engineer because they don't have the knowledge of a PHD to perform research and have less applied skills to use.

Delusional fantasy. Check out www.physicsforums.com, it's filled with bitter physicists who bought that same nonsense but have literally zero job prospects outside of a national lab job or temporary post-doc that pays 45k/year.

I don't know many physicists only making 45k a year. With a PhD a physicist at a lab is making around 100k

This not real life. OP is actually telling the truth. Lab physicists are lucky to break 60K and it's only the directors or executives who will break that much rather than the guys doing the experiments/theoretical research.

You dumb? Those people are making a **** ton of money. They are engineers as well. There is no real distinction from Engineering / Physicists when you're at that level. For instance, my father was a physics major, he decided to go into engineering, now he designs mass spectrometers...both take a lot of knowledge about physics and the properties of matter

That's what you may think as an outsider, but there is a major distinction. Those are government projects, so the government only hires physicists to do them now (with good reason, most engineers do not know the underlying physics in the first place to tackle such projects). If it was industry or companies, they would be hiring engineers and expecting engineers to figure it out (even if they don't know the relevant physics). Companies overwhelmingly prefer engineers and see physicists as impractical people, even if the physicist is as practical and knowledgeable for the same job the engineer is applying for.

I don't know what you're talking about, but many physicists out earn engineers and work R&D positions for companies that are usually only open to engineering PhDs, and fortunately there isn't many of them to go around in industry. It also depends on your specialization. If you specialized in particle physics or astrophysics, then you won't have more options outside a lab and academia. However, if you specialize in condensed matter physics, plasma physics, atomic/optical physics then the sky is really the limit when it comes to industrial options and high salaries.

you are assuming that every postdoc is einstein.. Im guessing here but only top physicists significantly contribute to the sphere of knowledge.. while us engineers are always contributing, albeit with the lesser charge of application

Depending on the field of physics your referring to, ALOT of engineering and physics overlap. And if your not applying something you have learnt in an effective way that can generate $, you dont get paid $